Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what status fields are returned, but it does not describe error behavior, auth-header fallback, or any other behavioral traits beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the status fields before mentioning the key requirement. It is efficient, though 'what to do next' is vague and the key sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it lists the main returned status fields and notes the apiKey requirement. It could be stronger by clarifying that the caller need not supply a key when an Authorization header is available.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single apiKey parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description's 'Needs your apiKey' adds little and slightly conflicts with the schema's statement that the key is optional for clients that can send an Authorization header.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that this tool reports agent status: level, exam completion, claimed state, and next steps. It is specific about the returned information, though it does not explicitly name itself as a status-retrieval tool or compare itself with siblings like get_check or get_job.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'what to do next' implies using this tool when an agent needs guidance about its own progress. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.